Intellectual Capital disclosure and academic rankings in European universities:

Do they go hand in hand?

ABSTRACT

Purpose – In this paper a comparison of the way IC is disclosed in the websites of the universities
in three European countries is performed in order to assess the way universities decide to
communicate IC to their stakeholders and identify potential patterns and trends. In addition, the
relation between the level and the type of IC web disclosure in universities and academic rankings
as a proxy of performance is explored to reveal interrelations.

.
Design/methodology/approach – The study is based on a sample of 128 universities coming from
Greece (22), Italy (58) and Spain (48). The websites of the universities are content analysed to
measure the level of IC disclosure. The IC disclosure metrics are then correlated with the academic
rankings of the World Ranking.
Findings – While the level of IC disclosure among universities and among countries is not
homogeneous, human capital and internal capital items are more heavily disclosed compared to
external capital items in all three countries. In addition, larger universities in terms of number of
students tend to disclose more on IC. Moreover, there is a positive correlation between the level of
web IC disclosure and the academic ranking that challenges the IC disclosure strategies followed by
the universities.
Originality/value – The paper represents an innovative contribution to the existing literature as it
investigates websites to assess the level of IC disclosure provided by universities in a comparative
perspective. Furthermore, it analyses the relationship between the online IC disclosure and
European universities academic rankings and provides evidence on the interaction between the IC
disclosure and the ecosystem in which the universities operate contributing to the 4th stage of IC
research.

Research paper

Keyword: University Rankings, Intellectual capital (IC), IC web disclosure, comparative IC

research, Universities.

1
 Intellectual Capital disclosure and academic rankings in European universities:

Do they go hand in hand?

1. Introduction

University management, traditionally built around a culture of collegium and bureaucracy

(McNay, 1995) has experienced profound changes during the last decades. The New Public
Management (NPM) era has caused a shift from traditional bureaucracy management to modern
public management. Empirically, this shift results in the adoption of routines and practices taken
from the world of business such as the focus on performance, the treatment of service users as
“customers” as well as the introduction of new accounting tools and techniques suitable to better
support decision making towards efficiency and effectiveness (Pollitt, 2009; Turri, 2014). A further
agent of change, at least in Europe, is the so-called Bologna Process which has introduced “the
qualification frameworks” (Bologna Working Group, 2005) to ensure high-quality teaching among
universities and has stimulated the competitiveness, mobility and comparability among different
European Higher Education Systems (HES).
Furthermore, the role of universities in the development of economy and society has been
recognised and the importance of activities related to technology transfer, cooperation with
industries and community has become evident, so that, beyond the traditional first and second
mission (teaching and research, respectively), the “third mission” (engagement with the society) has
gained momentum (Laredo, 2007).
A further innovation deserving attention is the increasing use of Information and
Communications Technology (ITC) which has been widely adopted by universities to communicate
with stakeholders (Bisogno et al., 2014). In this realm, and by taking into account that universities
are knowledge-intensive organisations strongly based on the use and development of intangible
resources, there has been a growing attention by scholars and institutions (MERITUM, 2002;
Leitner et al., 2014; Ramírez Córcoles and Gordillo, 2014) to intellectual capital (IC) management,
measurement and disclosure in universities.
Research conducted so far on the examination of the IC disclosure in universities has analysed
the annual reports (Bezhani, 2010), the social reports (Sangiorgi and Siboni, 2017) and the
performance plans (Siboni et al., 2013). However, scholars have recently suggested the use of
different data sources apart from the traditional ones to examine IC disclosure (Pisano et al., 2017;
Ndou et al., 2018), providing, therefore, corroborative evidence that traditional reports are not the
only means of IC disclosure (Dumay and Guthrie, 2017). Within this realm, a first attempt to
analyse web-based IC disclosure in universities has been made by Manes Rossi et al. (2018).
Despite the existence of a European market in higher education, comparative research studies
about IC disclosure in universities are limited in number (Low et al., 2015) while they have not
2
focused so far on online IC disclosure. Comparative research may be beneficial to better understand
both behaviours and trends in disclosing IC to stakeholders, beyond national borders, detecting
convergences or even divergences in web disclosure practices (Vandemaele et al., 2005). Moreover,
it could provide empirical evidence on how universities located in different countries open up their
organisational boundaries to the broader ecosystem in which they operate especially in relation to
the impact of IC on society and environment which falls within the fourth stage of IC research
(Secundo et al., 2018).
In this realm, our study contributes to the fourth stage of IC research. It explores whether the
European universities that operate in a European educational ecosystem disclose IC on their
websites following similar patterns and to what extent this disclosure is related to their
performance. While performance is a multifaceted issue in higher education, the importance of
academic rankings as pivotal tools to compare higher education performance and productivity has
progressively emerged (Hazelkorn, 2013; Urdari et al., 2017). Academic rankings have quickly
established themselves among policy makers, governments and institutions as useful instruments
for measuring the university performance (Urdari et al., 2017), as well as a means for promoting
universities image in the recruitment of students and academic staff (Bisogno et al., 2014).

More specifically, this paper aims at answering the following two research questions:
RQ1: Do European Universities follow the same disclosure patterns?
We have selected three Mediterranean countries (Greece, Italy and Spain) with similar
administrative traditions and regulations in the public domain (Cohen et al., 2018). In none of these
three countries an IC report is mandatorily required. Thus, the context allows for a meaningful
comparison. Moreover, grasping useful insight regarding the current practices, patterns and trends
and testing convergences/divergences among universities based in different European countries
could provide useful input to European institutions for setting relevant IC disclosure guidelines.
In addition, we try to assess whether the level and the type of IC disclosure in websites is related
to university rankings, a phenomenon that is part of the most complex process of “marketization”
and “corporatization” of universities (Parker, 2011). Thus, our second research question is set as
follows:
RQ2-Are academic rankings and IC disclosure interrelated?
More specifically, while we acknowledge that university rankings assess a plethora of university
parameters to set up their scoring system, we test whether the rankings obtained are interrelated
with IC disclosed information. In the end, rankings are a metric that aims to show the stock and the
creation of IC. In this perspective – notwithstanding that each ranking system might be
controversial (Liu and Cheng, 2005) – rankings are a synthetic expression of the comparative value
of a certain university in the ecosystem within which it operates.
Based on these premises, the present research, after assessing the levels of IC disclosure
provided on the websites of Greek, Italian and Spanish universities, examines to what extent the
level of IC disclosure on the web is related to university rankings. We have to make clear that it is
not the relation between academic rankings and IC that is assessed. As university rankings are
considered a measure of performance of the universities (Wu et al., 2012) and IC is one of the main

3
drivers of organizational performance, especially in intangible based entities, such as universities,
the relationship between IC and universities' ranking could be rather considered as self-explanatory.
However, revealing the existence of a relation between IC web disclosure and academic rankings
would foster IC disclosure through websites with multiple benefits for researchers, academics and
students who would be able to retrieve value-adding information in an easily accessible manner
(Ndou et al., 2018). In other words, if IC disclosure is related to academic rankings and highly
ranked universities disclose more IC information, this would boost IC reporting strategies in
university websites. Moreover, identifying what to disclose, based on the relations of IC categories
(i.e. internal capital, external capital and human capital,) to academic rankings, would be useful to
decision makers, allowing for the application of a proper IC disclosure strategy (Dumay and
Guthrie, 2017).

The paper unfolds as follows. In the next section, a synthesis of previous research on IC in
universities as well as the idea of academic rankings as an emerging phenomenon are presented.
Section three introduces the reader to the context regarding the characteristics of the universities in
the three Mediterranean countries under comparison. Section four describes the methodology, while
section five contains the analysis of the results and the discussion. The last section draws some
conclusions, highlighting the contributions of the research, the way forward and the limitations.

2. Intellectual capital disclosure and university rankings: literature

review
Universities are complex organisations, with a multi-mission orientation and high complexity in
obtaining financial and human resources. In the achievement of the commonly recognised three
missions (teaching, research and the third mission), universities are based on the intense use of
knowledge, relationships, human resources and other intangibles which constitute the largest
proportion of their assets (Secundo et al., 2016). As therefore most of their assets are of intangible
nature, universities provide fruitful ground for IC creation and development.
Literature offers several classifications of IC initially developed for the private sector and
subsequently adapted to the public sector and the universities context in particular. A broadly
accepted classification, generated by the first study of Edvinsson and Malone (1997) on Skandia,
brakes down IC in human capital (HC), structural capital (SC) and relational capital (RC). This
classification that has been largely adopted by public institutions and international projects
(European Commission, 2006; MERITUM, 2002) with some variations, is often used in analysing
universities (Leitner, 2004; Sánchez et al., 2006; Ramírez Córcoles et al., 2011).
A further classification, also widely accepted by scholars, is the one which echoes the framework
developed by Sveiby (1997), which identifies internal, external and human capital. This
classification has also been adopted in exploring IC in universities, especially in analysing IC
disclosure (Sánchez et al., 2006; Low et al., 2015). Within a University context, internal capital is
defined as the knowledge within the institution at the end of the working day. It comprises
governance principles, organisational routines, procedures, systems, cultures, databases, intellectual

4
property, among others (Low et al., 2015). External capital is defined as the sum of resources
refereeing to the external relationships of the institution such as “customers”, “suppliers”, R&D
partners, government, etc. (Sánchez et al., 2006; Low et al., 2015). Finally, human capital is defined
as the knowledge that the human resources (teachers, researchers, PhD students, and administrative
staff in this case) would take with them if they left the institution (Manes Rossi et al., 2018).
But IC in universities also needs to be disclosed apart from being generated. According to An et
al., (2011) IC disclosure can be considered as a theoretical framework per se, at the intersection of
four different theories (Agency, Stakeholder, Signalling and Legitimacy). “It can be assumed that
organizations voluntarily disclose their IC so as to reduce information asymmetry and discharge
accountability to various stakeholders, as well as signal their legitimacy and excellence to society”
(An et al., 2011, p. 579). Scholars started to discuss the role of IC disclosure a long time ago, also
encouraged by the experience of mandatory IC university reporting in Austria (Leitner, 2004). IC
disclosure may be beneficial for both internal and external stakeholders, allowing to better know
and assess the university’s performance.
The digital revolution and the emergence of innovations in communication process have
stimulated scholars to follow a more innovative research perspective exploring new paths for IC
disclosure including websites and social media (Dumay and Guthrie, 2017; Massaro et al., 2017;
Manes Rossi et al., 2018). Internet landscape provides new ways to discuss and disclose IC
information with immediate benefits in terms of greater transparency, convenience and timeliness
(Dumay and Guthrie, 2017; Massaro et al., 2017). As such, web 2.0 tools are gradually replacing
static forms of communication such as annual reports as useful instruments to convey IC
information to stakeholders (Massaro et al., 2017). In particular, digital means reveal a proactive
and prompt information communication behaviour by universities in an attempt to engage with
different stakeholders. Considering the existence of a market for universities, where the ability to
attract funds, students and researchers has become pivotal to the success (Parker, 2011), disclosing
IC through the website is strategically relevant. Universities web sites can contribute in building a
bridge between universities’ internal and external knowledge by supporting universities in
concentrating the gaze on the complex ecosystem in which they operate and share resources. This is
consistent with the strand of the fourth stage of IC research (Secundo et al., 2017) according to
which “IC is utilised to navigate the knowledge created by countries, cities and communities and
advocates how knowledge can be widely developed thus switching from a managerial to an
ecosystem focus” (Dumay and Garanina, 2013, p. 21). This is of outmost importance considering
the growing relevance of the third mission of the universities. The third mission has been defined as
“as any activity, not included in teaching and research, that universities perform in relation to
“external environments” ” (E3M, 2010, p. 15). It includes three different dimensions, which prompt
universities to engage with the external ecosystem: technology transfer and innovation; continuing
education; and social engagement, creating and developing IC on a large scale (Secundo et al.,
2016; Secundo et al., 2018).
However, the benefits and the relevance of IC disclosure through universities’ websites have not
been adequately studied yet. Some scholars analyse the relationship with some governance,
financial and dimensional features of universities with online IC disclosure (Manes Rossi et al.,
5
2018; Ramírez Córcoles et al., 2019) obtaining contrasting results in relation to the possible
influence of size, age and financial performance. A further possible way of investigation is to assess
whether IC disclosure through universities’ websites is interrelated with universities' performance.
University rankings can be considered as a measure of performance.
In recent years, university rankings have rapidly widespread as a result of radical political and
economic changes occurred in European universities (Altbach, 2006). NPM movement has fostered
the “marketization” and “corporatization” of universities by placing a strong emphasis on
efficiency, effectiveness and performance measurement systems (Parker, 2011). Furthermore, the
Bologna Process has imposed the creation of a global market, in which universities compete to
reach the best results in terms of teaching and research and attract more funds but also to attract
more students and well-known researchers (Sangiorgi and Siboni, 2017). As a consequence,
university rankings as mechanisms to compare higher education performance and productivity have
gained momentum (Altbach, 2006; Urdari et al., 2017). They are considered useful tools to attract
students and researchers and enhance academic reputations and competitiveness (Urdari et al.,
2017). Governments and funders can use rankings to evaluate how universities invest their
resources while national evaluation systems can employ rankings to better assess universities
performance. Moreover, academic rankings might play a role in enhancing legitimacy and
accountability (Altbach, 2006; Urdari et al., 2017). A good ranking legitimates the position of a
university not only in its community but also in the entire Higher Education System by signalling
that it respects social and institutional objectives and values and ensures high-quality standards in
terms of research and teaching (Altbach, 2006; Urdari et al., 2017).
Nevertheless, academic rankings attract criticism as well (Marginson, 2007; Lukman et al.,
2014). In particular, the proliferation of different rankings using different indicators and parameters
for performance measurement creates compatibility and comparability problems. More specifically,
each ranking most likely employs different indicators for measuring university quality (Marginson,
2007). Other problems arise from the data acquisition process as some rankings are based on
subjective and qualitative data that are provided by the universities themselves. This undermines the
objectivity and reliability of performance evaluation (Lukman et al., 2014). Furthermore, many
rankings focus their attention solely on research and teaching performance by neglecting the
different dimensions of the third mission (Urdari et al., 2017).
Based on the above discussion it seems that academic rankings are here to stay as performance
mechanisms, regardless of their shortcomings, by assigning a different grade depending on the
value recognised to each university. An et al. (2011) point out that entities can be motivated to
disclose IC to signal organizational legitimacy and excellence (or superior quality) to the society. In
accordance with this, it can be expected that those entities that have more IC due to excellent
achievements have higher IC disclosure.
In this sense, it is important to know whether there are tools and policies that are related with
academic rankings. IC web disclosure policies could be such tools. Thus, in this paper we assess
whether academic rankings and IC disclosure are interrelated.

6
 3. Setting the context: the University system in Greece, Italy and Spain

In the aim of comparing data disclosed on the websites of the public universities located in the
three countries selected, the specific features of the university system in Greece, Italy and Spain
need to be briefly explained. For this reason, the following subsections present an overview.

3.1 The Greek University system

The first Greek university was established in Athens in 1837, a few years after the founding of
the state. The core mission of the Greek universities is the production and transmission of
knowledge through research and teaching. Higher education in Greece is structured into two main
types of institutions: universities, and technological educational institutions. Greek universities deal
both with teaching and research and offer bachelors, master and doctorate courses covering all the
scientific fields. Faculties are subdivided into departments, which are mainly responsible for
planning and implementing educational programmes. Each department is allowed to grant its own
diploma and has considerable autonomy on educational matters. Student places in public
universities in Greece are secured after a series of highly competitive Panhellenic (national)
entrance examinations covering all tertiary educational institutions.
Although universities have elected governing bodies (the rector and the deputy rectors), their
budgets, procurement, financial oversight and employment are determined by national legislation,
and the government exercises very tight control over establishing or abolishing faculties and
departments and determines the entrance examination system and departmental enrolments (after
consultation with each university). More specifically, the Ministry of Education determines human
resource issues, including all human resource policies and management systems, the number of staff
posts allocated to individual universities and departments, recruitment regulations, faculty
remuneration, staff appointment, promotion, social security, pension, etc. (Katharaki and
Katharakis, 2010). University funding is based on the number of students and the age of the
universities, and it is determined by concrete formulae. Within each university operates the Special
Account for Research Grants, whose role is to provide and manage funds designed to meet the
needs of research and development projects. In 2006 the Hellenic Quality Assurance and
Accreditation Agency (HQA) began its operations as the guardian of issues of quality in higher
education. The HQA is an independent body, overseen by the Ministry of Education and is centrally
responsible for quality assurance in tertiary education.
Greek universities are not obliged to issue any sort of IC report. Moreover, the information on
their websites should not follow a predetermined format.

3.2 The Italian University system

The Italian university system has been traditionally characterised by the prevalence of public
universities and marked by a strong bureaucracy based on a massive power centralization and

7
regulation exerted by the national government which entrusted tasks and financial resources to
institutional universities (Aversano et al., 2017).
Today the Italian university system comprises about 97 universities: 67 public (including the 3
High Education Centres and the 3 PhD Schools) and 30 private universities (including 11 telematics
universities). The public universities are mainly state-funded and attract about 90% of all Italian
students (Siboni et al., 2013; Sangiorgi and Siboni, 2017).
Following a common trend in Europe, several reforms in the last twenty years have changed the
bureaucratic structure of the Italian university system, in the aim of improving the quality of
research and teaching and at the same time of reducing public spending by ensuring greater
financial autonomy for universities (Turri, 2014; Sangiorgi and Siboni, 2017). The last reform in
2010, has led to decisive changes in governance, internal articulation, resource recruitment
mechanisms, evaluation criteria and financing system, assigning a relevant power to ANVUR the
national agency responsible for the assessment of the performance achieved by universities funded
by the State (Aversano et al., 2017; Sangiorgi and Siboni, 2017). In addition, with the
“transparency” decree 33/2013, all Italian public administrations are obliged to publish on their
website a section called "amministrazione trasparente" (transparent administration) including
financial, organisational and administrative information in accordance with specific requirements
but without reference to IC information.
Among the recent innovations following the trend of enhanced accountability, a specific
“rector’s report on the results of research, training and technology transfer” has been introduced in
2009. In the same year all public administrations (including universities) have been mandated to
draw up a three-year performance plan, identifying the strategic and operational objectives, and
related indicators for measuring and evaluating the performance of their administration (Siboni et
al., 2013).

3.3 The Spanish University system

In Spain, public universities had been controlled and financed by the Central Government until
the nineties. From then on, a process of decentralization of higher education to Regional
Governments has taken place and Regional Governments are now responsible both for this public
service and for providing specific funds. At the moment, there are 50 public universities and 32
private universities, and there are important differences regarding their size and characteristics, even
among the public ones.
One of the main challenges faced by the Spanish University System in the last years has been its
integration into the European higher education area, which has introduced important changes
through the creation of a general framework of quality assurance procedures (Sánchez and Elena,
2006), both from an internal and an external perspective. As for the external quality assessment
system, the National Agency for Quality Assessment and Accreditation (ANECA) was created in
2007. ANECA is responsible for the evaluation of the quality of teaching and institutions and the
accreditation of the university teaching staff.

8
 This emphasis on quality has also initiated changes in the information published by the
universities on their website. Thus, although there is no IC report obligation, universities have
become aware of the relevance of managing and publishing information about IC components
(Sánchez and Elena, 2006). Stakeholders have also become aware of IC relevance (Ramírez
Córcoles et al., 2011) and academics have developed a model for IC measurement and reporting
(Ramírez Córcoles and Gordillo, 2014). Furthermore, Spanish public universities must apply the
law 19/2013, on “Transparency, access to public information and good governance” which requires
the publication of institutional, organizational and planning information, juridical information and
economic, budgetary and statistical information.

4. Research methodology

4.1 Sample construction

This study focuses on a sample of 128 public universities coming from Greece (22), Italy (58)
and Spain (48). Private universities and e-learning universities are excluded from the analysis due to
differences in accountability and transparency frameworks, legislative backgrounds and funding
sources.
In the Greek case, the sample consists of the total population of public universities in 2017 (22 in
total). Technological institutions were excluded from this sample due to differences in the
legislative framework and the funding procedure.
To identify the sample for the case of Italy, all Italian public universities, including 61
universities, 3 High Education Centres and 3 PhD Schools have been identified. Then nine
universities have been eliminated for reasons of incompatibility and the analysis covers 58
universities.
For Spain, the total population consists of 50 public universities, but two public universities have
been eliminated due to their special characteristics. As a consequence, the sample consists of 48
public universities.
Data about university rankings have been obtained from the "Webometrics Ranking of World
Universities”, issued in 2018 (http://www.webometrics.info/en). This ranking was selected because
it is the only one that covers and ranks all the universities of the three countries. Also, it gives a
specific score per university and does not place it in a scoring range that is the case in other scoring
systems. This ranking system is built with publicly available web data, combining variables into a
composite indicator.
The ranking presents five indicators for each university:
- Presence Rank: based on the size (number of pages) of the main domain of the institution. It
considers all the subdomains sharing the domain.
- Impact or Visibility Rank: number of external networks (subnets) originating backlinks to the
universities’ web pages.

9
 - Openness or Transparency Rank: number of citations from top authors according to Google
Scholar Citations.
- Excellence or Scholar Rank: number of papers amongst the top 10% most cited in 26
disciplines. Data are considered for a five year period (2013-2017) and obtained from
Scimago.
- World Rank: it is a compose indicator based on the four previous indicators, with the
following weights: presence (5%); impact or visibility (50%), transparency (or openness)
(10%), excellence or scholar (35%).

4.2 Content analysis and the disclosure index development

IC disclosure items analysed in the research are those developed by Manes Rossi et al. (2018),
based on Low et al.’s (2015) study (Table 1). The items are classified under the sub-categories of
internal capital (8 items), external capital (9 items) and human capital (8 items).

Insert Table 1 approximately here

Krippendorff (1980, p.21) states that content analysis is a “research technique for making
replicable and valid inferences from data according to their context”. Moreover, Guthrie et al.
(2004, p. 287) state that “content analysis seeks to analyse published information systematically,
objectively and reliably”. In the realm of intellectual disclosure studies, content analysis is widely
used, and it has become very popular notwithstanding highlighted weaknesses related to
subjectivity, comparability, reliability and lack of innovation (Guthrie et al., 2004; Dumay and Cai,
2014; Goebel, 2015).
Regarding the coding process, the information required has been obtained by performing a
manual content analysis on universities’ websites during the first semester of 2017 (Manes Rossi et
al., 2018) focusing solely on the web pages in a web-browser format (Striukova et al., 2008;
Cormier et al., 2009). To ensure the accuracy and reliability of the analysis, a first sample of 6 (six)
universities’ websites (two from each country) has been simultaneously investigated by all the
researchers. This allowed to define the coding and clarify the grey areas. After considering the
differences and determining the final set of coding rules, the analysis has been performed
independently by the researchers (Guthrie et al., 2004; Striukova et al., 2008). Rather than adopting
the common dichotomous procedure, we follow a scoring system that assigns the values of 2 (two),
1 (one) and 0 (zero). A score of two is assigned if the item is disclosed on the main university
website, being easier to find, a score of one if the item is only evident on the department’s website
and not on the main website, being less easy to find, and a score of zero is given if the item is not
disclosed at all.
Moreover, following previous disclosure studies (Gallego-Alvarez et al., 2011; Bisogno et al.,
2014) the unweighted approach is adopted. This methodology considers that all items are equally
important and allows for subjectivity issues reduction.
10
 On the basis of the results obtained, an IC Disclosure Index (ICD Index), including all the 25 IC
items of Table 1 is developed in order to quantify and assess the level of online IC disclosure. The
calculation of the ICD Index is as follows:

∑𝒍𝒍𝒊𝒊=𝟏𝟏 𝒅𝒅𝒊𝒊
ICD Index = 𝒍𝒍
where ∑𝒍𝒍𝒊𝒊=𝟏𝟏 𝒅𝒅𝒊𝒊
= score obtained in the group of 25 IC items and l is the maximum score
obtainable in the group of the 25 IC items. The maximum value of the ICD Index is 1 and the
minimum is 0.

4.3 Data analysis

The Kruskal-Wallis Test is used to determine if there are statistically significant differences
between the level of IC disclosure in the three countries. It is a nonparametric test and will be used
for each of the 25 items of the index, as well as for the three components of the IC: internal,
external and human capital.
Furthermore, aiming at identifying common disclosing IC patters by the universities of the three
countries, we have analysed the relationship between the level of IC disclosure and the size of the
universities measured by the number of students. Bigger universities have to interact with a large
number of stakeholders and consequently they might be more prone to provide IC disclosure than
small universities. Previous studies examining the influence of size on IC web disclosure provide
contrasting results (Manes Rossi et al., 2018; Ramírez Córcoles et al., 2019). We calculated the
Spearman correlations between the size and the IC components and index. The Spearman rank
correlation coefficient is a nonparametric test that measures the association between two ranked
variables and is considered more appropriate than Pearson correlation (parametric coefficient) when
the variables are not normally distributed or the relationship is not linear.
To analyse the relationship of the IC disclosure with academic rankings, we use the Spearman
correlation coefficients. More specifically, we assess whether there is a correlation among the five
(5) ranking indicators and the IC indexes (i.e. internal capital index, external capital index, human
capital index and ICD Index).

Table 2 contains the descriptive statistics of the five ranking scores for the total sample of the
universities.
Insert Table 2 approximately here
.

11
 5. Results and Discussion

5.1 Comparing IC disclosure in universities in three Mediterranean countries

In order to study our first research question regarding the existence of a homogeneous IC disclosure
pattern in the three Mediterranean countries a comparative content analysis of the IC disclosure in
the websites of the universities in Greece, Italy and Spain is performed. Table 3 presents the results
of the analysis.

Insert Table 3 approximately here

The mean value of ICD Index for Greece is 0.36, the variance is approximately 0.02, while the
minimum and the maximum values are 0.07 and 0.53 respectively. The magnitude of the mean
value indicates that Greek universities tend to disclose a significant- but not high- amount of IC
information through their websites. This could document the complexity and the limited ability of
their websites to provide information.
The internal capital category has the highest average followed by the human capital and the
external capital. This evidences that Greek universities place more emphasis to the disclosure of
culture and knowledge that has been “conquered” than to the disclosure of connections that people
outside the organization have with it (Guthrie et al., 2004). These findings are in line with the study
of Low et al. (2015), who found that the most disclosed categories are the internal and human
capital. These findings are also in line with the assertion that universities’ main goal is to produce
and diffuse knowledge through research and teaching (Ramírez Córcoles and Gordillo, 2014) and
therefore the decision to promote internal and human capital is rational.
In Italy, the mean value of ICD Index is of 0.7, with a minimum value of 0.35 and a maximum
value of 0.91. This high mean value evidences, on the one side, that Italian universities disclose a
large amount of IC information through the websites and on the other side that many items are
disclosed on the main web page. Therefore, the structure of Italian university websites seems to be
particularly accessible and user-friendly confirming that websites can support universities in IC
management and disclosure practices by enhancing stakeholders’ engagement (Ndou et al., 2018).
Moreover, on average, each Italian university discloses 19.76 IC items (79% of total IC items) in
its website, with a special focus on human capital (86%) and internal capital (81.5%) followed by
external capital where 70.3% of items are disclosed. Recent legislative developments in Italy have
modified the system of funds allocation to universities stressing the importance of performance and
results achieved by universities by encouraging them to disclose information embedded in internal
capital and human capital.
The level of disclosure in Spain for all the types of IC is low and very similar across all
categories. In the internal capital, the mean is 4.60, which represents only 57.50% of the items
considered. In the human capital, the mean of the level of disclosure is 54.13% of the items. For the
external capital, the level of disclosure is on average 53.22% of the items. The mean for the 25

12
items is only 13.73, which indicates that Spanish universities do not disclose on average many of
the IC items.
In the ICD Index, the mean is 0.50, with a minimum value of 0.21 and a maximum value of 0.88.
This shows that there are important differences among universities and that although some of them
disclose most of the IC items, other universities disclose only a few of them. The results show that
the level of disclosure of IC in the websites of Spanish universities is only medium and that some
efforts should be required to improve the situation in the next years.
Table 4 analyses the popularity of each item and provides information regarding the location on
the website where IC items are disclosed (i.e. in the main university website, in the department’s
website or nowhere).

Insert Table 4 approximately here

The descriptive statistics reveal a pluralism in IC disclosure strategies within the universities
within each country. Differences in disclosure patterns might be motivated by legitimating and
excellence signals that vary among universities and that are related to the way universities' IC
impact on the society and the ecosystem within which they operate consistent with the fourth stage
of IC research. As evidenced by the p-value of the Kruskal Wallis test there are only a few cases
where the universities in the three countries disclose with the same intensity IC items. If we use the
5% statistical significance level as a threshold, this holds true only for the “Management
Philosophy” (internal capital- INT.4), “International programs for students – mobility” (external
capital-EXT.4) and “Teaching staff information” (human capital - HC.1). Therefore it seems that
universities do not follow a standard IC disclosure strategy.

Moreover, at a country level, will a homogeneity cannot be supported a clear trend towards
preference towards internal capital and human capital IC items disclosure is evident. These results
can be interpreted form different perspectives. Firstly, as already highlighted by scholars (Leitner,
2004; Ramírez Córcoles and Gordillo, 2014; Sangiorgi and Siboni, 2017), universities, being
knowledge-intensive organisations, produce mainly knowledge through scientific research and
teaching activities driven by their most relevant resources identifiable in their researchers and
teachers, so, it could be expected that the focus of university IC disclosure is on internal capital and
human capital which are based on them. Secondly, in the light of the emerging third mission, the
disclosure of technology transfer, patents and innovation processes, included in internal capital, has
become fundamental in order to provide greater transparency towards stakeholders (Secundo et al.,
2016). Finally, our results are consistent with An et al. (2011) that universities would voluntary
disclose IC to show signs of excellence to the society. Excellence is more easily attributable to
internal capital and human capital dimensions.

Thus our empirical evidence regarding our first research question supports the view that there is
not a clear disclosing scheme in the universities in the three countries apart from a preference
towards disclosing more on human capital and internal capital.
13
 In order to test if the university size could be a potential factor to explain the level of IC
disclosure by universities we have calculated the Spearman correlation ratio between the size and
the disclosed IC components. As can be seen in Table 5, the coefficient is statistically significant in
all the cases. That is, the internal capital index, the external capital index and the human capital
index have a positive association with the size and this association is statistically significant. This
provides corroborating evidence that larger universities based on the number of their students
disclose more IC information to their stakeholders. Larger universities may consider more
important to disclose IC information to increase their legitimacy or communicate signs of
excellence. Therefore the size parameter exposes a common factor in our analysis regarding IC
disclosing trends and patterns. These results are in line with previous literature findings about the
impact of the size on IC disclosure, and in particular with Ramírez Córcoles et al., (2019) who find
a positive relationship between university size and the level of online ICD.

Insert Table 5 approximately here

5.2 The relation between IC disclosure and university rankings

Our second research question aims at assessing whether there is a relationship between IC
disclosure and academic rankings. This could provide evidence whether IC disclosure strategies are
related to academic rankings. The coefficients of Spearman correlation (Table 6) show that there is
a statistically significant relationship among all the indexes of IC disclosure and the World
Ranking. The coefficients are in all cases negative, showing that the universities that have the
highest indexes of disclosure are better located in the ranking (the smaller the number, the better the
ranking). The global indicator of the ranking reveals that universities that disclosure more
intensively on internal, external and human capital attain better values in the ranking.

Insert Table 6 approximately here

Focusing on the individual indicators of the ranking, the results show that universities disclosing
more about their IC, in all its dimensions, have the highest values on Excellence and Openness
rankings. There is also a strong statistically significant relationship between the ICD index and the
Openness and Excellence ranks, as well as with the Global indicator. The internal capital index and
the human capital index are statistically related with the Openness and Excellence Rank, while they
do relate to the Presence and Impact Rank. The external capital index shows a statistically
significant coefficient of correlation with all the variables of the ranking. The correlation among the
Presence and Impact Rank and the external capital index is an interesting finding. The empirical
evidence of our study (see Table 2) revealed that external capital is the less intensively disclosed IC
dimension. Nevertheless, it is statistically related to academic rankings and more specifically to

14
rankings that the disclosure of other IC dimensions does not seem to have a statistically significant
relationship. In other words, universities should not downplay the disclosure of external IC as it is
also related to performance as proxied by academic rankings.

6. Conclusions

Universities are knowledge-intensive organisations, strongly based on the use and development
of intangible resources, constituting, therefore, excellent cases to perform IC related studies. The
disclosure of IC by universities is a research topic that deserves special attention due to the non-
financial character of the universities output and outcome.
This paper adds to this research agenda on several fronts. Firstly, it is a study of the public
universities in three European Mediterranean countries that, by adopting the model developed by
Manes Rossi et al. (2018), provides a fresh view on IC disclosure assessment in a comparative
approach. The context allows for the performance of a meaningful comparison to grasp useful
insight regarding current practices and trends. Secondly, it accesses IC disclosure through the
dynamic means of the university websites and not through static reports, answering to a call for
research in IC disclosure through alternative communication tools (Dumay and Guthrie, 2017).
Thirdly, it focuses on universities that operate in a regulatory environment where IC reporting is not
obligatory and therefore universities choose what to report to their stakeholders in relation to their
IC on their own initiative. Thus the study falls within the fourth stage of IC research where the
effect of IC on the ecosystem in which the entities operate is studied. Disclosing IC signals
organizational legitimacy and excellence to the society (An et al., 2011). Last but not least, the
study explores whether IC disclosure is related to performance where academic rankings are used as
indicators of performance. Our findings, that IC disclosure and academic rankings are interrelated,
puts on the table tangible evidence that IC disclosure matters.
The results based on the analysis of the websites of 128 public universities in Greece, Italy and
Spain in relation to the 25 IC disclosure items show that IC disclosure strategies diverge. This
provides collaborative evidence which contributes to the IC research that IC disclosure is related to
the emphasis and focus that public universities would like to communicate to their stakeholders.
Nevertheless there is an overarching tendency of public universities to disclose more frequently on
human capital and internal capital IC items and less on internal capital items. This is consistent with
the conclusion of Massaro et al. (2017) about convergence in IC reporting. In addition, IC
disclosure is associated with the size of the universities and larger universities tend to disclose IC
more intensively. These universities have to interact with a larger number of stakeholders and
consequently they might be more prone to provide IC disclosure in order to increase legitimacy and
provide signals of excellence
Furthermore, our analysis on the relationship between the IC disclosure and the academic rankings
(i.e. "Webometrics Ranking of World Universities”) provides evidence of a positive correlation.
Universities that disclose more heavily on IC dimensions on their website are ranked better, mainly
in the Openness and Excellence ranking, and vice versa. Moreover, external capital that is less

15
frequently disclosed in university websites is also statistically related to academic rankings. The
results show that IC disclosure strategies are relevant and therefore deciding on an IC disclosure
strategy is not trivial.
These findings have significant implications. While in this study we do not measure IC per se
but IC disclosure, it is evidenced that the universities that are extrovert and openly disclose
information about their IC dimensions attain better rankings than the others. In other words, IC
disclosure philosophy and academic performance, proxied by academic rankings, go hand in hand
as far as universities are concerned. This also confirms the idea supported by An et al. (2011) that
through voluntary reporting universities can give signals of excellence and close the information
asymmetry gap with their stakeholders. As it is difficult to find a university that excels in academic
rankings and has at the same time a website that discloses poor information about IC dimensions,
universities should better consider specific strategies about IC disclosure through the websites. This
result adds to previous studies about the fourth stage of IC research, demonstrating that disclosing
IC is related to international ranking, thus reinforcing the idea that universities’ IC has an impact on
the society (Secundo et al., 2018)
This study provides some important implications for policy makers as well. It is obvious that IC
items reporting in not self-evident and not all institutions place the same emphasis on disclosing
specific items. It should be stressed that the study does not measure the IC of the universities but the
level of IC items disclosure. In order to be able to compare universities and have a holistic view of
their activities and operations in relation to teaching, research and the third mission some basic
disclosure requirements could be imposed. IC disclosure would be used as a tool for public
universities to compete in the international university arena and attract students and researchers. We
trust that the IC disclosure items used in this study, adapted from Manes Rossi et al. (2018), provide
a good starting point in order to set an IC disclosure model through their website for public
universities.
The fact that several universities do not disclose several IC items on their websites while others
do, needs further study. Our findings provide evidence that there are differences both among
countries but also within institutions in the same country. Size is one parameter that seems to matter
but apart from that other variables such as the national culture, the management team or the faculty
characteristics of the institutions could induce differentiations in the disclosure strategy followed
and deserve more analysis.
The relation between academic rankings and IC disclosure is a finding that deserves further
study as well. It is not that the level of IC is related to academic performance and therefore
academic rankings, which is rather self-evident, but that disclosing IC elements is relevant too.
Having websites that are rich in IC related information may provide evidence among others of an
extrovert university philosophy, tendency to interact and reduce information asymmetry with
stakeholders, increase legitimacy to the society which in turn are related to knowledge-intensive
organisations' principles and performance.
This study has some limitations: first, this research considers a single year (2017), so it does not
capture the online IC reporting trends over time. Second, the analysis compares public universities
in three Mediterranean countries and thus cannot draw conclusions about the whole population of
16
European universities. Finally, the relations with academic rankings are confined to the
"Webometrics Ranking of World Universities". Future studies may enlarge the discussion to other
countries, providing a wider understanding of the phenomena.

References

Altbach, P.G. (2006) ‘The Dilemmas of Ranking’, International Higher Education , Vol. 42, pp.1-
2, Winter.
An, Y., Davey, H., and Eggleton, I. R. C. (2011). Towards a comprehensive theoretical framework
for voluntary IC disclosure. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 12 No.4, pp. 571–585.
Aversano N., Manes-Rossi F. and Tartaglia-Polcini P. (2017) “Performance Measurement Systems
in universities: A Critical Review of the Italian System” in E. Borgonovi et al. (eds.), Outcome-
Based Performance Management in the Public Sector, Springer International Publishing, pp.
269-287
Bezhani, I. (2010),“Intellectual capital reporting at UK universities”, Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 179-207.
Bisogno, M., Citro, F., and Tommasetti, A. (2014),“Disclosure of university websites. Evidence
from Italian data”, Global Business and Economics Review, Vol. 16 No.4, pp. 452-471.
Bologna Working Group on Qualifications Frameworks. (2005). A Framework for the
Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area. Copenhagen.
by Finding its Hidden Brainpower, HarperCollins, New York, NY.
Cohen, S., Manes Rossi, F., Caperchione, E., & Brusca, I. (2018). Local government administration
systems and local government accounting information needs: is there a mismatch?. International
Review of Administrative Sciences, 0020852317748732.
Cormier, D., Aerts, W., Ledoux, M. J., and Magnan, M. (2009), “Attributes of social and human
capital disclosure and information asymmetry between managers and investors”, Canadian
Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, Vol. 26
No. 1, pp. 71-88..
De Santis, F. and Presti C., (2018) "The relationship between intellectual capital and big data: a
review", Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 26 Issue: 3, pp.361-380
Dumay, J. and Cai, L. (2014), “A review and critique of content analysis as a methodology for
inquiring into IC disclosure”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 264-290.
Dumay, J., and Garanina, T. (2013), “Intellectual capital research: a critical examination of the third
stage”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 10-25.
Dumay, J., and Guthrie, J. (2017), “Involuntary disclosure of intellectual capital: is it relevant?”,
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 18 No.1, pp. 29-44.
Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M. (1997), Intellectual Capital: Realising Your Company’s True Value
European Commission (2006) RICARDIS: Reporting Intellectual Capital to Augment Research
Development And Innovation in SMEs, report to the commission from the High Level Expert
Groups on RICARDIS, Directorate General of Research, European Commission, Brussels
Gallego-Alvarez, I., Rodríguez-Domínguez, L., and García-Sánchez, I. M. (2011), “Information
disclosed online by Spanish universities:content and explanatory factors”, Online Information
Review, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 360-385.
Goebel, V. (2015), “Is the literature on content analysis of intellectual capital reporting heading
towards a dead end?”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16 No.3, pp. 681-699.
Guthrie, J., Petty, R., Yongvanich, K. and Ricceri, F. (2004), “Using content analysis as a research
method to inquire into intellectual capital reporting”, Journal of intellectual capital, Vol. 5 No.
2, pp. 282-293.

17
Hazelkorn, E. (2014), “Reflections on a Decade of Global Rankings: what we've learned and
outstanding issues”, European Journal of Education, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 12-28.
Katharaki, M and G. Katharakis (2010), “A comparative assessment of Greek universities’
efficiency using quantitative analysis”, International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 49
No. 4-5, pp 115–128
Krippendorff K. (1980), Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology, The Sage
CommText Series, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Laredo, P. (2007). “Revisiting the third mission of universities: Toward a renewed categorization of
university activities?”. Higher education policy, Vol. 20 No.4, pp.441-456.
Leitner, K. H. (2004), “Intellectual capital reporting for universities: conceptual background and
application for Austrian universities”, Research Evaluation, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 129-140.
Leitner, K.H., Curaj, A., Elena-Perez, S., Fazlagic, J., Kalemis, K., Martinaitis, Z., Secundo, G.,
Sicilia, M.A.and Zaksa, K. (2014), A Strategic Approach for Intellectual Capital Management in
European universities: Guidelines for Implementation, UEFISCDI, Bucharest
Liu, N. C., & Cheng, Y. (2005). The Academic Ranking of World Universities. Higher Education
in Europe, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp.127–136.
Low, M., Samkin, G., and Li, Y. (2015), “Voluntary reporting of intellectual capital: Comparing the
quality of disclosures from New Zealand, Australian and United Kingdom universities”, Journal
of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16 No.4, pp. 779-808.
Lukman, R., Krajnc, D., and Glavič, P. (2010), “University ranking using research, educational and
environmental indicators”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 619-628.
Manes Rossi, F., Nicolò, G., and Tartaglia Polcini, P. (2018), “New trends in intellectual capital
reporting: Exploring online intellectual capital disclosure in Italian universities”, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 814-835.
Marginson, S. (2007), “Global university rankings: Implications in general and for Australia”,
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 131-142.
Massaro, M., Dumay, J., and Bagnoli, C. (2017), “When the investors speak. Intellectual capital
disclosure and the web 2.0”, Management Decision, Vol. 55 No. 9, pp. 1888–1904.
McNay, I. (1995), “From the collegial academy to corporate enterprise”, in Schuller, T. (Ed.), The
Changing University?, Taylor & Francis, Bristol, PA.
MERITUM. (2002), “Guidelines for managing and reporting on intangibles”, Fundación Airtel-
Vodafone, Madrid.
Ndou, V., Secundo, G., Dumay, J., and Gjevori, E. (2018), “Understanding intellectual capital
disclosure in online media Big Data: An exploratory case study in a university”, Meditari
Accountancy Research, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 499-530.
Pisano, S., Lepore, L. and Lamboglia, R. (2017), “Corporate disclosure of human capital via
LinkedIn and ownership structure: An empirical analysis of European companies”, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 18 No.1, pp. 102-127.
Pollitt, C., (2009), “Bureaucracies remember, post-bureaucratic organizations forget?”’, Public
Administration, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 198–218.
Ramírez Córcoles, Y. and Gordillo, S. (2014), “Recognition and measurement of intellectual capital
in Spanish universities”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 173 - 188
Ramírez Córcoles, Y., Santos Peñalver, J. F., and Tejada Ponce, Á. (2011), “Intellectual capital in
Spanish public universities: stakeholders' information needs”, Journal of Intellectual capital,
Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 356-376.
Ramírez Córcoles, Y., Merino, E., & Manzaneque, M. (2019). Examining the intellectual capital
web reporting by Spanish universities. Online Information Review, forthcoming.
Sánchez, M.P., and Elena, S. (2006), “Intellectual capital in universities: Improving transparency
and internal management”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 529-548.

18
Sánchez, M.P., Castrillo, R. and Elena, S. (2006), “Intellectual capital management and reporting in
universities”, paper presented at The International Conference on Science, Technology and
Innovation Indicators. History and New Perspectives, Lugano, 15-17 November.
Sangiorgi, D. and Siboni, B. (2017), “The disclosure of intellectual capital in Italian universities:
What has been done and what should be done”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 354-372.
Secundo, G., Del Vecchio, P., Dumay, J., & Passiante, G. (2017), “Intellectual capital in the age of
Big Data: establishing a research agenda”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp.
242-261.
Secundo, G., Dumay, J., Schiuma, G., and Passiante, G. (2016), “Managing intellectual capital
through a collective intelligence approach: An integrated framework for universities”, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 298-319.
Secundo, G., Massaro, M., Dumay, J.C. and Bagnoli, C. (2018), “Intellectual Capital Management
in the fourth stage of IC research: a critical case study in University settings,” Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 157–177
Siboni, B., Nardo, M. T., and Sangiorgi, D. (2013), “Italian state university contemporary
performance plans: an intellectual capital focus?”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 414-430.
Striukova, L., Unerman, J., and Guthrie, J. (2008), “Corporate reporting of intellectual capital:
Evidence from UK companies”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 297-313.
Sveiby, K. E. (1997). The new organizational wealth: Managing & measuring knowledge-based
assets. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Turri, M. (2014), “The new Italian agency for the evaluation of the university system (ANVUR): a
need for governance or legitimacy?”, Quality in Higher education, Vol. 20 No.1, pp.64-82.
Urdari, C., Farcas, T. V., and Tiron-Tudor, A. (2017), “Assessing the legitimacy of HEIs’
contributions to society: The perspective of international rankings”, Sustainability Accounting,
Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 191-215.
Vandemaele, S. N., Vergauwen, P. G. M. C., & Smits, A. J. (2005), “Intellectual capital disclosure
in The Netherlands, Sweden and the UK: A longitudinal and comparative study”, Journal of
intellectual Capital, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 417-426.
Wu, H. Y., Chen, J. K., Chen, I. S., and Zhuo, H. H. (2012), “Ranking universities based on
performance evaluation by a hybrid MCDM model”. Measurement, Vol. 45 No.5, pp. 856-880.

19
Table 1. Intellectual Capital items (content) based on Manes Rossi et al. (2018)
Internal Capital IC components Description Score
Information about patent rights held by the
INT.1 Intellectual Property as patent rights
university 0-1-2
Information about publications, books and articles
INT.2 Intellectual Property as publications
developed by researchers. 0-1-2
Comprising the vision, attitudes, experiences,
INT.3 University Culture
beliefs, values and future programs of universities. 0-1-2
Information about the university’s mission and main
INT.4 Management Philosophy
objectives. 0-1-2
Information about the university’s infrastructural
INT.5 Infrastructural facilities
framework and facilities (e.g., classes, libraries). 0-1-2
Information about ICT technologies such as
INT.6 Infrastructural ICT databases, connections, new technologies, new
instruments and software. 0-1-2
INT.7 National research projects Research projects financed by National bodies 0-1-2
European and International research Research projects financed by European and
INT.8
projects International bodies 0-1-2
External Capital IC components Description
EXT.1 Brand identity Information about university brand identity. 0-1
EXT.2 Brand merchandising Information about university brand merchandising 0-1
Information about students and their satisfaction
EXT.3 Student satisfaction
with the learning processes. 0-1
Information about mobility programs for students
EXT.4 Mobility programs for students
and international programs (e.g., Erasmus) 0-1-2
Information about agreements with companies and
Post-graduation, high education and public institutions for students’ placements as well as
EXT.5
specialisation programs masters, training, collaboration, postgraduate or
post-doctorate and specialisation programs. 0-1
Table with information about number and activities
EXT.6 University third mission - spin-offs
of university spin-off 0-1-2
University third mission - research Information about university research consortia and
EXT.7
consortia and cluster technological clusters. 0-1-2
Information about the number of students per faculty
EXT.8 Students information
or department. 0-1
EXT.9 Graduate students information Information about the number of graduate students 0-1
Human Capital IC components Description
Panel with the name, qualification and department of
HC.1 Teaching staff Information affiliation of researchers, associate professors and
full professors employed in the university. 0-1-2
Panel with the name and department of affiliation of
HC.2 PhD students' Information
PhD students. 0-1-2
HC.3 PhD students' courses Information Information on PhD students courses and programs. 0-1-2
Panel with the name and department of affiliation of
HC.4 Research fellows information
research fellows 0-1-2
Information about mobility programs for researchers
HC.5 Mobility programs for employees and professors and international programs (e.g.,
Erasmus). 0-1-2
Panel with the name, qualification and department of
HC.6 Administrative staff information staff and administrative employees employed by the
university. 0-1-2
HC.7 Internationalisation of teaching staff Information about visiting professors or researchers. 0-1-2
Education or training programs for employees
HC.8 Training programs
provided by the university. 0-1

20
 Scoring: A score of 2 is assigned if the item is disclosed on the main university website, being easier to
find, a score of 1 if the item is only available on the department’s website and not on the main website,
where it is less easy to find, and a score of 0 if the item is not disclosed at all.

21
Table 2 Descriptive Statistical for academic ranking indicators
Standard
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
World Rank 128 31 8,411 773.55 1,041.305
Presence Rank 128 75 5,834 1,564.59 1,578.453
Impact Rank 128 219 8,151 1,937.60 1,672.593
Openess Rank 128 130 9,491 999.70 1,265.856
Excellence Rank 128 68 5,789 1,005.84 1,137.358
Valid N (listwise) 128
Data: Webometrics Ranking of World Universities issued in 2018 (http://www.webometrics.info/en).

Table 3 Web content analysis results for IC categories and Indices for Greek, Italian and Spanish universities
Greek universities Italian universities Spanish universities Comparison
Krus
kal P-
Total ma Walli valu
items Mean % var min max mean % var min max mean % var min x s X2 e
Internal
Capital 8 4.86 60.79 4.79 0 8 6.52 81.5 1.41 1 8 4.60 57.50 4.54 1 8 25.32 .000
External
Capital 9 2.18 24.24 0.82 1 4 6.33 70.3 2.54 3 9 4.79 53.22 2.59 3 9 62.81 .000
Human
Capital 8 3.27 40.90 1.92 0 5 6.91 86.0 1.13 5 8 4.33 54.13 3.80 1 8 65.27 .000
Total IC 25 10.32 41.27 13.37 2 16 19.76 79.0 9.03 9 25 13.73 54.92 20.41 7 23
ICD Index 1 0.36 0.02 0.07 0.53 0.70 0.01 0.35 0.91 0.50 0.03 0.21 0.88

22
Table 4 Comparison of disclosure of IC items among countries
Greek Universities Italian Universities Spanish Universities Comparison

Kruskal
Internal % of % of % of
Frq. 0 1 2 Frq. 0 1 2 Frq. 0 1 2 Wallis - p-value
Capital universities universities universities
X2

INT.1 17 77.27% 5 12 5 53 91.38% 5 1 52 19 39.58% 29 5 14 45.231 0.000

INT.2 19 86.36% 3 13 6 56 96.55% 2 4 52 20 41.67% 28 7 13 51.118 0.000

INT.3 9 40.90% 13 1 8 13 22.41% 45 1 12 23 47.92% 25 3 20 7.336 0.026

INT.4 19 86.36% 3 7 12 41 70.69% 17 21 20 23 47.92% 25 4 19 5.514 0.063

INT.5 15 68.18% 7 1 14 50 86.21% 8 33 17 48 100.00% 0 4 44 37.584 0.000

INT.6 11 50.00% 11 1 10 56 96.55% 2 4 52 46 95.83% 2 7 39 22.974 0.000

INT.7 7 31.81% 15 7 0 54 93.10% 4 7 47 21 43.75% 27 5 16 50.936 0.000

INT.8 10 45.45% 12 10 0 55 94.83% 3 5 50 21 43.75% 27 5 16 54.053 0.000

Kruskal
External % of % of % of
Frq. 0 1 2 Frq. 0 1 2 Frq. 0 1 2 Wallis - p-value
Capital universities universities universities
X2

EXT.1 8 36.36% 14 8 / 35 60.34% 23 35 / 11 22.92% 37 11 / 15.334 0.000

EXT.2 2 9.09% 20 2 / 19 32.76% 0 19 / 5 10.42% 43 5 / 10.087 0.006

EXT.3 1 4.54% 21 1 / 55 94.83% 0 55 / 18 37.50% 30 18 / 60.665 0.000

EXT.4 22 100.00% 0 3 19 58 100.00% 0 1 57 48 100.00% 0 5 43 4.771 0.092

EXT.5 2 9.09% 20 2 / 58 100.00% 0 58 0 48 100.00% 0 48 0 113.316 0.000

EXT.6 1 4.54% 21 1 0 51 87.93% 7 3 48 25 52.08% 23 8 17 53.614 0.000

EXT.7 8 36.36% 14 1 7 50 86.21% 8 5 45 43 89.58% 5 9 34 20.418 0.000

EXT.8 2 9.09% 20 2 / 22 37.93% 36 22 / 10 20.83% 38 10 / 7.735 0.021

EXT.9 2 9.09% 20 2 / 19 32.76% 39 19 / 22 45.83% 26 22 / 9.693 0.008

Kruskal
Human % of % of % of
Frq. 0 1 2 Frq. 0 1 2 Frq. 0 1 2 Wallis - p-value
Capital universities universities universities
X2

HC.1 21 95.45% 1 17 4 58 100.00% 0 53 5 30 62.50% 18 17 13 3.738 0.154

HC.2 9 40.90% 13 8 1 46 79.31% 12 43 3 2 4.17% 46 1 1 55.64 0.000

HC.3 2 9.09% 20 1 1 58 100.00% 0 1 57 46 95.83% 2 15 31 80.225 0.000

HC.4 2 9.09% 20 2 0 35 60.34% 23 35 0 28 58.33% 20 18 10 18.492 0.000

HC.5 15 68.18% 7 0 15 58 100.00% 0 2 56 48 100.00% 0 1 47 22.45 0.000

HC.6 18 81.81% 4 11 7 56 96.55% 2 51 5 21 43.75% 27 12 9 16.54 0.000

HC.7 3 13.63% 19 2 1 33 56.90% 25 18 15 7 14.58% 41 4 3 25.11 0.000

HC.8 2 9.09% 20 2 / 57 98.28% 1 57 / 26 54.17% 22 26 / 61.542 0.000

The naming of IC items in presented in Table 1

23
Table 5. The association between Intellectual Capital Disclosure and Size of Universities. Spearman Correlation

Internal Capital External Capital Human Capital ICD Index Size logn
Internal Capital

External Capital .563**

Human Capital .554** .642**
ICD Index
.814** .860** .808**

Size logn
.185* .430** .391** .351**
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed)
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed).

Table 6. The relations among Intellectual Capital and Rankings: Spearman Correlation

World Rank Presence Rank Impact Rank Openness Rank Excellence Rank
Internal Capital
-.402** -.069 -.109 -.321** -.301**

External Capital -.572** -.178* -.229** -.445** -.436**

Human Capital -.585** -.077 -.129 -.400** -.364**
ICD Index
-.549** -.095 -0.162 -.407** -.385**

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed)

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed).

24